wildcardjack:Okay, who's the farker that thought it would be a good idea to drive half finished A380's through the French countryside on a regular basis was a good plan?

I wonder what the accounting for that subtly communist "company" looks like.

I've always wondered about that production model myself. There is no way that it is, in any way, efficient to build the fuselage in one place, the wings in another, and join them together somewhere else. I'm guessing each of the Airbus governments wanted a piece of the work, and this is what they came up with.

buzzcut73:wildcardjack: Okay, who's the farker that thought it would be a good idea to drive half finished A380's through the French countryside on a regular basis was a good plan?

I wonder what the accounting for that subtly communist "company" looks like.

I've always wondered about that production model myself. There is no way that it is, in any way, efficient to build the fuselage in one place, the wings in another, and join them together somewhere else. I'm guessing each of the Airbus governments wanted a piece of the work, and this is what they came up with.

Well, you know we built the big rockets for the space shuttle in Utah. Many of the satellites that we launch are built near Denver. All that has to be shipped to Florida for launch.

Did some traveling a few weeks ago on Airbus 320 and 321s. Not a single one worked correctly. All sorts of delays. It ended up taking 25 hours to get from Tampa to Houston. First plan had computer problems (ended up replacing the computers completely, then the navcomp failed and had to be replaced. I'm assuming they were Apple products) that kept us on the tarmac for three hours before flying to Charlotte. Second plan had something damaged in the cargo area and they then popped us onto a third plan, which also had a problem - but it worked well enough to get us to Houston.

Then let me enlighten you. AF447 was caused by a pilot misreading the situation, not being trained in high-speed stall conditions and consistently providing the wrong control input. (In this case, nose-up.) The airplane was in perfect, flyable condition and obediently followed the commands from its human masters, right into the sea. If the PF had let go of the controls 30 seconds into the event, you would have never heard of AF447.

AA587 - a pilot overcompensating for wake turbulence, applying full rudder first to one side, then to another, stressing the stabilizer way beyond the design (and classification) envelope. This is not how you're supposed to fly heavy aircraft. (Pilots have since complained that the rudder pedals are too sensitive. Could be. But no one not from Boeing have insisted that the vertical stabilizer is too weak.)

It does strike me as funny that people tend to complain about Airbus' over-reliance on computers yet also tend to cite accidents that are due to human error.

Then let me enlighten you. AF447 was caused by a pilot misreading the situation, not being trained in high-speed stall conditions and consistently providing the wrong control input. (In this case, nose-up.) The airplane was in perfect, flyable condition and obediently followed the commands from its human masters, right into the sea. If the PF had let go of the controls 30 seconds into the event, you would have never heard of AF447.

AA587 - a pilot overcompensating for wake turbulence, applying full rudder first to one side, then to another, stressing the stabilizer way beyond the design (and classification) envelope. This is not how you're supposed to fly heavy aircraft. (Pilots have since complained that the rudder pedals are too sensitive. Could be. But no one not from Boeing have insisted that the vertical stabilizer is too weak.)

It does strike me as funny that people tend to complain about Airbus' over-reliance on computers yet also tend to cite accidents that are due to human error.

We've all read the NTSB reports, same as you. We just draw different conclusions. As a pilot myself, I know that a sturdy airplane will not disintegrate when the control surfaces are fully deflected while airspeed is less than VNE. This apparently is not true of Airbus aircraft -- see exhibit AA 587.

Yeah, you're right, AF 447 was pilot error. An Airbus cruising along at top speed in the upper atmosphere suddenly has complete ADC (air data computer) failure, causing autopilot disconnect at an altitude and speed where drag divergence is approximately equal to stall speed. That's not a shiatty airplane at all -- that's pilot incompetence. You're an idiot.

buzzcut73:wildcardjack: Okay, who's the farker that thought it would be a good idea to drive half finished A380's through the French countryside on a regular basis was a good plan?

I wonder what the accounting for that subtly communist "company" looks like.

I've always wondered about that production model myself. There is no way that it is, in any way, efficient to build the fuselage in one place, the wings in another, and join them together somewhere else. I'm guessing each of the Airbus governments wanted a piece of the work, and this is what they came up with.

All Boeing planes are assembled from parts built all over the world too. 737 fuselages are built in Wichita and shipped by rail to Seattle. Boeing built a fleet of 'Dreamlifters' to fly 787 pieces from all over the world to Seattle and South Carolina.

JH3675:TanHamster: As a pilot myself, I know that a sturdy airplane will not disintegrate when the control surfaces are fully deflected while airspeed is less than Va.Link

"The NTSB found that many pilots of transport category airplanes mistakenly believe that, as long as the airplane's speed is below VA, they can make any control input they desire without risking structural damage to the airplane."

My mistake, I guess the notion that you could fully deflect at less than VA is a quaint one that harkens back to the days when airplanes were designed by engineers, and were constructed out of aluminum. Then Airbus came along with their crappy, plastic airplanes designed by graphic artists, and the FAA had to change the law to say, basically, "LOL."

ronaprhys:Did some traveling a few weeks ago on Airbus 320 and 321s. Not a single one worked correctly. All sorts of delays. It ended up taking 25 hours to get from Tampa to Houston. First plan had computer problems (ended up replacing the computers completely, then the navcomp failed and had to be replaced. I'm assuming they were Apple products) that kept us on the tarmac for three hours before flying to Charlotte. Second plan had something damaged in the cargo area and they then popped us onto a third plan, which also had a problem - but it worked well enough to get us to Houston.

Boeing & Bombardier make solid airplanes. Embraer airframes are OK, but I'll take a CRJ with GE engines over an ERJ with crappy Rolls Royce engines.

This is an anecdote, but here in Binghamton, NY, my airline buddies have said numerous times that when it's bitter cold, the CRJs will start right up while the ERJs don't have a prayer of lighting.

I can find a list of Boeing disasters caused by mechanical failure as well. I doubt it would make a difference though would it?

I suspect all you'll find are crashes that are attributed to maintenance. Boeing airframes simply do not crack apart the way Airbus airframes do. Hell, when Boeing was load testing the 777 wing, they went beyond the FAA requirement just for the lulz, to see just exactly how much load the wings could take before failing. There's a video of it on the web, I'm sure. The wings were flexed up at an astonishing deflection before they snapped. On the other hand, the A380 test failed short of the FAA requirement. Never did fix the problem, so politics got involved, and a waiver was issued. At least that's my understanding.

Boeing & Bombardier make solid airplanes. Embraer airframes are OK, but I'll take a CRJ with GE engines over an ERJ with crappy Rolls Royce engines.

This is an anecdote, but here in Binghamton, NY, my airline buddies have said numerous times that when it's bitter cold, the CRJs will start right up while the ERJs don't have a prayer of lighting.

I can find a list of Boeing disasters caused by mechanical failure as well. I doubt it would make a difference though would it?

I suspect all you'll find are crashes that are attributed to maintenance. Boeing airframes simply do not crack apart the way Airbus airframes do. Hell, when Boeing was load testing the 777 wing, they went beyond the FAA requirement just for the lulz, to see just exactly how much load the wings could take before failing. There's a video of it on the web, I'm sure. The wings were flexed up at an astonishing deflection before they snapped. On the other hand, the A380 test failed short of the FAA requirement. Never did fix the problem, so politics got involved, and a waiver was issued. At least that's my understanding.

TanHamster:JH3675: TanHamster: As a pilot myself, I know that a sturdy airplane will not disintegrate when the control surfaces are fully deflected while airspeed is less than Va.Link

"The NTSB found that many pilots of transport category airplanes mistakenly believe that, as long as the airplane's speed is below VA, they can make any control input they desire without risking structural damage to the airplane."

My mistake, I guess the notion that you could fully deflect at less than VA is a quaint one that harkens back to the days when airplanes were designed by engineers, and were constructed out of aluminum. Then Airbus came along with their crappy, plastic airplanes designed by graphic artists, and the FAA had to change the law to say, basically, "LOL."

It harkens back to a time when airplanes were made to be as strong as possible and as light as they need to be. Nowadays they are designed to be as light as possible and as strong as they need to be. Which, I would argue, is a more refined way to engineer things, as long as you get the limits correct. Even your beloved Boeing designs aircraft this way.

The first officer on AA 587 got a little excited and overstressed the airframe through erratic stop-to-stop rudder movements. I had much the same reaction when I was a student and got flicker vertigo. But that's just it, I was a student in a bombproof Cessna, not a highly trained ATP that knew how to handle the situation. I do like Boeing's general philosophy that the pilot tells the aircraft what to do rather than Airbus allowing the pilot to ask the computer if its OK. If the A330 had not had this system then the Air France 447 pilots may not have relied on it to keep them within the flight envelope, if in fact they did. But then again the A300 didn't have that system and the aircraft let the pilot make control inputs that tore it apart. Two different control philosophies for two different construction philosophies, both of which are becoming more alike with each new aircraft./I also hate side sticks.

TanHamster:An Airbus cruising along at top speed in the upper atmosphere suddenly has complete ADC (air data computer) failure, causing autopilot disconnect at an altitude and speed where drag divergence is approximately equal to stall speed. That's not a shiatty airplane at all -- that's pilot incompetence.

You really should have stuck with "I dunno". There was no "complete ADC failure" at freakin' all, where on Earth did you get that idea? Don't tell, me, same place you got "basically an Airbus fell apart during cruise regime", seeing as that never happened either.

There was temporarily divergent indicated airspeed data, probably a frozen-over pitot tube - not uncommon, as you as a pilot will of course know. So the aircraft hands over control to the pilots and goes into Alternate Mode - can't very well stay on autopilot when the plane isn't sure of its IAS.

30 seconds later, the IAS data matched again and the plane would have happily taken over control again, but its human masters kept applying nose-up control input.

Do Boeing autopilots keep on going if the pitot tubes start giving different data? Because that doesn't sound very safe at all. (Don't answer that. Of course a Boeing autopilot disconnects under such conditions. They're not idiots - they do in fact build very good planes.)

Erik_Emune:TanHamster: An Airbus cruising along at top speed in the upper atmosphere suddenly has complete ADC (air data computer) failure, causing autopilot disconnect at an altitude and speed where drag divergence is approximately equal to stall speed. That's not a shiatty airplane at all -- that's pilot incompetence.

You really should have stuck with "I dunno". There was no "complete ADC failure" at freakin' all, where on Earth did you get that idea? Don't tell, me, same place you got "basically an Airbus fell apart during cruise regime", seeing as that never happened either.

There was temporarily divergent indicated airspeed data, probably a frozen-over pitot tube - not uncommon, as you as a pilot will of course know. So the aircraft hands over control to the pilots and goes into Alternate Mode - can't very well stay on autopilot when the plane isn't sure of its IAS.

30 seconds later, the IAS data matched again and the plane would have happily taken over control again, but its human masters kept applying nose-up control input.

Do Boeing autopilots keep on going if the pitot tubes start giving different data? Because that doesn't sound very safe at all. (Don't answer that. Of course a Boeing autopilot disconnects under such conditions. They're not idiots - they do in fact build very good planes.)

Yeah, no.

Does your devotion to Airbus have anything to do with the fact that you're from Europe?

Because that's really what this is about... a nationalistic pissing contest. I'm sorry it makes you mad, but I can't help the fact that an American company builds better aircraft than a multiple-European-government-subsidized aerospace conglomerate.

Then let me enlighten you. AF447 was caused by a pilot misreading the situation, not being trained in high-speed stall conditions and consistently providing the wrong control input. (In this case, nose-up.) The airplane was in perfect, flyable condition and obediently followed the commands from its human masters, right into the sea. If the PF had let go of the controls 30 seconds into the event, you would have never heard of AF447.

AA587 - a pilot overcompensating for wake turbulence, applying full rudder first to one side, then to another, stressing the stabilizer way beyond the design (and classification) envelope. This is not how you're supposed to fly heavy aircraft. (Pilots have since complained that the rudder pedals are too sensitive. Could be. But no one not from Boeing have insisted that the vertical stabilizer is too weak.)

It does strike me as funny that people tend to complain about Airbus' over-reliance on computers yet also tend to cite accidents that are due to human error.

We've all read the NTSB reports, same as you. We just draw different conclusions. As a pilot myself, I know that a sturdy airplane will not disintegrate when the control surfaces are fully deflected while airspeed is less than VNE. This apparently is not true of Airbus aircraft -- see exhibit AA 587.

Yeah, you're right, AF 447 was pilot error. An Airbus cruising along at top speed in the upper atmosphere suddenly has complete ADC (air data computer) failure, causing autopilot disconnect at an altitude and speed where drag divergence is approximately equal to stall speed. That's not a shiatty airplane at all -- that's pilot incompetence. You're an idiot.

What's your take on Air France Flight 296 then? Pilot error or mechanical failure?Here's the plane entering the forest at Habsheim, France, after an airshow flyover. Amazingly, only 3 of the passengers died, the rest managed to escape. The BEA (France's NTSB) blames Captain Michel Asseline (and he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to jailtime). Asseline blames the plane and claims there's a cover-up involving the substitution of the black boxes by nefarious elements. There's a great Mayday/ACI episode about the crash.

TanHamster:kg2095: TanHamster: If it's not Boeing, I'm not going. Seriously.

Boeing & Bombardier make solid airplanes. Embraer airframes are OK, but I'll take a CRJ with GE engines over an ERJ with crappy Rolls Royce engines.

This is an anecdote, but here in Binghamton, NY, my airline buddies have said numerous times that when it's bitter cold, the CRJs will start right up while the ERJs don't have a prayer of lighting.

I can find a list of Boeing disasters caused by mechanical failure as well. I doubt it would make a difference though would it?

I suspect all you'll find are crashes that are attributed to maintenance. Boeing airframes simply do not crack apart the way Airbus airframes do. Hell, when Boeing was load testing the 777 wing, they went beyond the FAA requirement just for the lulz, to see just exactly how much load the wings could take before failing. There's a video of it on the web, I'm sure. The wings were flexed up at an astonishing deflection before they snapped. On the other hand, the A380 test failed short of the FAA requirement. Never did fix the problem, so politics got involved, and a waiver was issued. At least that's my understanding.

You do know that the 787's hull is entirely composite right? Not even built on a metal frame? Even Airbus uses a frame.

TanHamster:The wings were flexed up at an astonishing deflection before they snapped. On the other hand, the A380 test failed short of the FAA requirement. Never did fix the problem, so politics got involved, and a waiver was issued. At least that's my understanding.

You understand incorrectly. The first physical test failed. But they then updated their model based on the actual measurements from that test to ensure the future designs would meet the standards. They then used the test-validated model to avoid some future physical tests, since they had already proven the physics in question. It's really nothing like being issued a waiver for political reasons -- it's actually 100% science based -- but that's a hard point to argue if the opponent has already reached a conclusion before understanding the situation.

JH3675:I do like Boeing's general philosophy that the pilot tells the aircraft what to do rather than Airbus allowing the pilot to ask the computer if its OK.

I'm sure you like that philosophy. Right up until the point where the pilot does something retarded and you crash. I suspect just before impact you're really appreciate the AirBus philosophy of letting the computer keep you from crashing in spite of the ridiculous input from the pilot.

/ There are risks to both systems// Assuming one is better than the other under all circumstances is the height of folly

Having worked in the avionics industry, and written some of the software for the A400, I'm getting a kick out of this thread...

It's a wonder those planes don't just fall out of the sky (or for that matter, even make it into the sky at all) - the bureaucrats spend years wanking over requirements, then expect the code monkeys to churn out software in 6 months. Then they wonder why there are so many schedule and budget overruns.

With a Fark handle of Paris1127, I don't have to guess which team you're on. But anyway, I'm not really too nervous because of an airplane that crashed while showing off for the crowd, which was the case in AF 296. I'm more concerned with the ones that crack apart while doing normal airplane things like departing JFK or cruising at flight level 350.

profplump:TanHamster: The wings were flexed up at an astonishing deflection before they snapped. On the other hand, the A380 test failed short of the FAA requirement. Never did fix the problem, so politics got involved, and a waiver was issued. At least that's my understanding.

You understand incorrectly. The first physical test failed. But they then updated their model based on the actual measurements from that test to ensure the future designs would meet the standards. They then used the test-validated model to avoid some future physical tests, since they had already proven the physics in question. It's really nothing like being issued a waiver for political reasons -- it's actually 100% science based -- but that's a hard point to argue if the opponent has already reached a conclusion before understanding the situation.

Then why even do the full-scale, no-shiat flex tests at all? Certainly we can calculate the theoretical yield strength of the wing, given the properties of the materials. I don't care how many smart people sign off on the design -- there's no replacement for strapping the thing down and pushing on it until it breaks. That's why they do it. The A380 wing has never been shown to withstand 150% in the flex test, isn't that right? The bottom line is that the certification law says 150%, and Airbus never demonstrated that.

With a Fark handle of Paris1127, I don't have to guess which team you're on. But anyway, I'm not really too nervous because of an airplane that crashed while showing off for the crowd, which was the case in AF 296. I'm more concerned with the ones that crack apart while doing normal airplane things like departing JFK or cruising at flight level 350.

Well then you guessed wrong. I am actually not a big fan of Airbuses (I think they're safe), but I feel much safer on Boeings. The only Boeing I won't fly on is the 787 for the reasons I stated previously.